It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
1. The reintroduction of the Moneypenny character seemed to have followed a trend of "empowerment" by adding field duties to her resume. Comments from Sam Mendes and others seem to indicate that her return to strictly desk type duties that the end of Skyfall alluded to may not be written in stone. The thesis question here is, should Moneypenny again physically participate in car chases and other action sequences, or she largely be desk bound and be kept as a non-combatant?
I don't really want her to be a field agent like in SF, certainly not in the action scenes, but if it's done right, I could be OK with it, but it's a big IF.
2. While our new Q is less the buffoon of the Cleese era, I felt that his credibility took a hit when Silva outwitted him. More disturbing to me is this era of "political correctness" and the temptation to have the character reflect Ben Whishaw's real life status as a gay man to promote diversity. Having seen in prior entries that Q certainly appreciates the ladies in a heterosexual sense, the question is both how would you feel if the "gay Q" scenario happened, and does this level of PC belong in a film series that has thrived just fine without it?
I feel that Silva getting the best of Q will be a plot point in future movies. It was embarrassing to say the least, I hope that Q will grow as a character because of it. Regarding his sexuality, I don't care, providing it does not "hamper" on future Bond adventures. (Could you imagine if Q's boyfriend got kidnapped in order to extort Q... horrible...)
3. The eternal question I will always have- did you agree with the decision to kill off Severine? Please explain your answer and specifically what you would have done if your answer is "no".
Tricky one. Would I have liked Severine to be in more of the movie? Yes. But I think that it worked fine as in the film.
4. Silva's escape plot I think we all can agree was implausible. Now you be the writer. What would you have done?
After Bond and M question him, Silva is being transported to a high security prison, as we saw from SF, MI6 is not particularly secure. Whilst being transported, still in the traffic jams of London, Silva's men arrive, and bust him out.
5. A two part question. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate Newman's score? Please feel free to detail as to what you liked and if you didn't like it, what was missing for you? Second, do you want Newman back or would you prefer a return to David Arnold or another composer entirely?
I would give it a 3. It was a fine score, but a bit to much "generic-actiony music" for me.
If they gave the job to either Newman or Arnold I'd be fine. Hopefully Newman would improve second time round. Perhaps Newman was waiting to have the complete MI6 staff to be, uhm, completed, thus giving him his cue, to treat us with the "Bond Sound".
However I would like to see Michael Giacchino give it a try.
6. Much has been made about Mendes' acknowledgement that the film reflects his admiration for the recent "Batman" films. And yet Bond films have always survived just fine on their own special formula. So with Skyfall appearing to have brought Bond full circle from CR/QOS and with that in mind, name any three "formula elements" lacking in the current films you would like to see return. For example, they brought back Moneypenny and Q, so what else should return and how would the next adventure look to you?
Formula elements, eh?
well...
1. Gun-barrel back to the start.
2. M and Moneypenny in the office - M briefs Bond, and Bond flirts with Moneypenny. Done.
3. A big epic mission, like TB. Not in the plot, but more like in structure.
4. Bond to have more fun, plus a woman in his arms at the films end. It's past due.
5. Craig to be more gentlemanly and to have more Joie de vivre. I want to see if Craig can do the archetype Bond movies from yore. Like @pachazo said, I've enjoyed Craig's tenure so far, and the glimpses into Bond's psyche, but I feel it's time for a brief hiatus. If just for one film!
Well I am not assuming he will be portrayed as gay; just speculating as the question asked. Some people think that will happen because the writer is gay and because this is still fairly strong PC in many films. I don't care about Q's sexuality and really I think it should be left out entirely. Just have him be Q, for Pete's sake, have good banter with Bond and be more brilliant and truly clever the next time around.
Amen to that. :)
All manner of change is possible...
Indeed. And it is only speculation. I'd like to see him exactly as described above and don't feel it is necessary to expound on or even nod to the personal mores of a minor character. But with the actor and writer being gay, the encouragement of the PC crowd for positive gay role models, and Whishaw's paycheck, the temptation will be there. I don't elect to join those who are going crazy at the thought and see it as a stone cold inevitability, but under these conditions it is quite possible that EON and the studio will ignore the wishes of their hardcore audience and try to cater for more B.O bucks.
Recall the scene when Silva touches the inside of Bond's thigh and Bond says, "What makes you think this is my first time?" At which point Silver jumps up and says, "Oh, Mr. Bond."
I have a good friend who mentioned that as far as that scene goes, think about this:
Bond is a sexual beast. Why would he not go "both ways" from time to time.
At the risk of getting flamed, your thoughts?
I don't mind having Gay, Lesbian or even Bisexual characters in the Bond series. We've had them before. Pussy Galore, Wint and Kidd.
But many others (Myself include) will agree that Bond should in fact be and stay straight.
As for Q. I really don't see why it's relevant. The previous Q's have never been given any real backstory or sexual preferences. Well Desmond may or may not have had a Hookup with Octopussy's girls. But really I don't see anything like that popping up. Has John Logan pushed for any pro gay scenes and in movie he's written?
Ben's Q was only given more screen time than the previous Q's because he's being reintroduced to the franchise after a 10 year absence, Same goes for Moneypenny.
I think Early on EoN got a tiny bit PC with Brosnan's era, but since the Reboot I haven't really seen any PC esque changes to anything. I don't consider Felix being played by Jeffery Wright PC because Felix was Black in NSNA. Same with Naomi Harris playing Moneypenny. She's not the greatest actress in the world, but she did a fine job in Skyfall. Her and Craig have great chemistry. Eon really doesn't seem like the type to go full on PC like most of Hollywood today.
Sorry for derailing the thread.
Check out TLD Bond having a monogomous relationship and not bed hopping (to keep in step with the AIDS scare of the 80's)
Also, the move away from Bond smoking cigarettes in the 1970's. Literary Bond is a heavy chain smoker, in the early filsm (DN-OHMSS) he does smoke. By the 1970's it was agreed that smoking was bad and thus the cinematic Bond has moved away from this.
Roger smokes cigars in LALD but that's about it until Dalton's two films where in several scenes he is seen smoking or reaching for his pack of ciggarettes.
Bond Smoking: Who really cares? Is it that important we see a scene with Bond taking a smoke break in the middle of a mission or not? His job should come before his personal habits. I'm completely neutral on the whole smoking thing. I can't really call it politically correct. Smoking wasn't really considered taboo until the turn of the century.
All's fair.
:))
1. Taking into account the development of the character in SF, I would find it difficult to believe MP would become a field agent again. However, it is now established that she knows how to take care of herself if something works. I think she will remain desk bound (so hypothesis 2) but I wouldn't be surprised if something in the script would allow her to show a trick or two.
2. It is human to make mistakes, I don't think his credibility was hit but his pride was. I don't think Q's portrayal for the future should go beyond some well-written banter between the two of them. Q's private life has no place in these films and should remain like that.
3. I wished she could have "lasted" longer but I understand the decision to kill her, and to do so in the most shocking way possible. She served to shock the audience and show how dangerous and volatile Silva was.
4. Ah, the escape. Tricky question! I would have an accomplice kill the guards, simple and effective. However, since we don't actually see the escape taking place in its entirety, any guess is possible as to how he did it.I'm only talking about escaping the cell, however. The rest, albeit improbable, remained possible ;)
5. I would give him 3,5. I like the soundtrack but was expecting more from Newman. He's done amazing, absolutely brilliant soundtracks before so I was expecting something outstanding. Perhaps the legacy put limits to his imagination? I don't know. One thing is sure, I like David Arnold. I think he did a fine, fine job, especially with CR which I consider one of the best soundtracks of the entire franchise. If Newman returns I won't mind, but I hope he's more inspired this time around. If Arnold comes back I'll welcome him back with open arms.
6. Mendes admired the recent Batman films, but those films have borrowed (to put it mildly) from Bond and for me that is the true circle we should talk about. I personally think he created a new sort of beast with SF, just notice how relevant Bond has become again and how influential the film became. We don't need to look any further than the first episode of the latest series of Sherlock (written by two major Bond fans by the way). SF influence screams in most of that episode!
For the next one I'd like a longer Bond girl survival rate, gunbarrel at start (though I'm not obsessed with it), and ski!
2) This is a multi-facted question. I see no reason why Ben Whishaw’s personal life should impact on Q’s. Whishaw is a very good actor, and like any actor he should be expected to play characters that are entirely unlike him on a personal level. I don’t think the prior Q should have any bearing on the current Q’s life either. It took a dozen films before Llewellyn’s Q was shown to be heterosexual, why shouldn’t it take just as long to find out about the personal interests of Whishaw’s Q? I always saw the Bond series as being fairly well “un-PC” long before the term “PC” was ever coined. I don’t expect to see that changing substantially other than to reflect current audience attitudes. All this being said, I really don’t care if anyone in the Bond repertory company comes out of the closet. We never knew much at all about the personal life of Bernard Lee’s M. Was he married? I don’t believe we were ever told anything on this topic one way or the other. Could HE have been (a deeply closeted) gay? Why not? If it was good enough for J. Edgar Hoover…
Finally, on the issue of Q’s credibility being undermined: agreed, it was a little early in this incarnation of the character’s screen history to show him being so badly out-thought. I trust that future films will allow him to rehabilitate himself in that regard. I also think that the entire issue of Silva’s escape was the weakest aspect of Skyfall. We’ll deal with this topic more fully farther on down the page…
3) I thought the early demise of Severine was an effective manner of demonstrating Silva’s ruthlessness…BUT: it weakened the film terribly to dispose of such a memorable character so quickly. This has happened in all 3 of Craig’s appearances as Bond so far, and it’s a pattern that the film-makers needed to abandon ASAP. Solange, Fields, and Severine: all gorgeous women who have dallied with Craig’s Bond and then been killed for their troubles within short order. What would I have done with Severine instead of killing her right away? I’d have killed her…much later, after using her to solve the problem posed in the next question.
4) I’d have had him let himself be captured in order to get closer to M, just as was done in the existing film. Then I’d have had Severine (who we already known has been under his control for most of her adult life) aid his escape and help him connect with his band of hirelings to attack M at the hearing (which Silva had NOT been able to forsee, and which throws a wicked curve into his plan of just getting close to M and killing her at MI-6 headquarters.) Severine would have been killed during Silva’s escape, and the film would have proceeded along the same lines that we already know, albeit without the implausible subway train crashing through that hole in the tunnel.
5) I believe I’ve already covered this question in my review. Bottom line: I’d rather return to David Arnold.
6) I’m not as huge an advocate of having the gun barrel sequence return to the beginning of the film as are some others. I certainly wouldn’t complain if it were to occur, but it’s not on my Top Three list. The most important formula element I’d like to see returning is Bond ending the film in the arms of a live and appreciative leading lady. They kiss; the credits roll; the audience leaves the theatre happy. It’s been too long since we had that kind of formula ending and it’s about time it happened that way for Craig’s Bond. Secondly, I’d like to see Bond issued a brand-new top-flight gadget, supplied by Q somewhere in the early scenes of the film and utilized by Bond to help turn the tide of battle at a critical moment. Too bad if Whishaw’s Q said “We don’t really go in for that kind of thing anymore,” in this movie. Llewellyn’s Q found outfitting Bond in the field “Highly irregular” in Thunderball…and then we saw him out in the field several times after that. I guess he got used to it, and so did we. The cutting-edge gadgetry is an important part of the Bond mystique, let’s bring it back. Finally, I’d like to get a sense that Bond isn’t so emotionally tortured all of the time. Connery’s Bond ENJOYED his job (aside from people trying to kill him on a regular basis) -- so did Moore’s and Brosnan’s. Lazenby wasn’t Bond long enough for us to get any real sense of his opinion on anything other than hating Blofeld and loving Tracy. And Dalton’s Bond was too much of a grumpy Gus to enjoy much of anything -- perhaps that’s why the general audience never really warmed up to him. It’s understandable that Bond can get burned out from time to time -- but let’s see him enjoying the glamour, the women, and the over-the-top adventure in his life once in awhile too. BOND #24 would be a good place to start.
It all comes down to handling. My instinct is to say 'no'. However, if the script is good and the tone in which it's done does not completely and utterly turn Moneypenny on her head, than I might be able to live with it. I am gradually coming to accept that the DC era is about reimagining Bond and that the purpose of the 'reboot' is not simply about taking us on a journey that ends up returning us to the point at which we met Bond in 1962. Therefore, I think it's entirely justified that Moneypenny becomes a slightly different character. Frankly, since Lois, all the Moneypennys have been a disappointment. They've tried to portray her in almost exactly the same way as during the Connery and Moore eras, and it simply hasn't worked. It's come across as reheated and limp. I was not entirely comfortable with the Moneypenny character in SF, and it seemed odd that she was a field agent. However, the way they set her up as an assistant to Mallory, could allow he to straddle both roles - agent and secretary.
I think the bigger danger though, aside from the risk of messing with who Moneypenny is, is that we have a continuation of this trend in which the Bond movies are domestic or workplace dramas, focused on the characters within MI6, rather than great villains, expansive plots and the wonderful one-off oddballs and characters that Bond meets along his way.
Therefore, while I am open to reinterpretations of the MI6 characters, I feel that I'd like to see the next movie focus on Bond and his mission, and not M, Moneypenny or Q (or any one else at MI6).
2. While our new Q is less the buffoon of the Cleese era, I felt that his credibility took a hit when Silva outwitted him. More disturbing to me is this era of "political correctness" and the temptation to have the character reflect Ben Whishaw's real life status as a gay man to promote diversity. Having seen in prior entries that Q certainly appreciates the ladies in a heterosexual sense, the question is both how would you feel if the "gay Q" scenario happened, and does this level of PC belong in a film series that has thrived just fine without it?
My previous answer covers most of this, in that I am relaxed now about EON and Mendes reinventing the characters. I can now see that this was probably long overdue and one reason that the Brosnan films were so stale. Perhaps it's a generational thing, but for me I really wouldn't blink an eyelid if they made Q gay. Having said that, I can't really see a reason why this would come up in the films. If it did arise as an element of the plot, my concern would again be that the Bond films are focusing on these domestic and workplace issues that have come to dominate the recent films, rather than a meaty Bond plot.
I don't feel that having 'normal' gay characters portrayed on screen in the 21st century is 'PC' - rather simply reflecting the reality of human life. I hope most other posters would share my view that this is no longer a big deal. I for one am glad that we live in an era where friends and family who are gay no longer have to live in the shadows. The more this reality is depicted in films and the media, the more we can all come to accept it and do away with a huge amount of unnecessary human missery.
I have never been a big fan of cyber stuff, which is one of the main things that really annoyed me about the second half of SF - too much overreliance on tedious cyber shenanigans, something which in film-making is often just used as a lazy way to cover up bad or unconvincing plotlines. I'd therefore like to see Q focus a little more on some old school hardware in B24. That is unless, they can find a genuinely intelligent and original way to work modern surveillance technology into the story and give Q something actually worthwhile to do. No more 'breadcrumbs' that only the villain could possibly follow, please.
3. The eternal question I will always have- did you agree with the decision to kill off Severine? Please explain your answer and specifically what you would have done if your answer is "no".
I thought SF deserved a rewatch in order to reply to these questions, and I have to say that this time round, some elements that really annoyed me first time round were less to the fore, and I was able to enjoy Mendes' thematic thrust a little more than previously.
I am still in two minds about Severine. I quite like her character, but there are elements of the plot that just don't convince. However, putting these aside, I no longer feel that in terms of the film that it particularly bothers me that she dies when she does. I still get the sense watching the film that Mendes cut some of Severine's scenes. There is something a little too abrupt about her demise that suggests she was originally supposed to have a bigger role, but I think in terms of the thrust of the movie, her death at that point is fine. I just wonder where her other scenes went - I suspect Mendes was a little underwhelmed by her performance actually, and just cut her quite ruthlessly.
What I would have changed is some of her actions. If she's so afraid of Silva, why does she just turn up with Bond on her boat? Up until the point he appears on deck, we can presume that none of the goons know he's on board. Therefore, why doesn't Bond stow away in the morning and get onto the island in secret? By standing brazenly next to Severine on the deck he is obviously going to get her into big trouble - it seems like an excuse for a nice camera shot, rather than being based on rational behaviour.
We all know that actually Silva has this masterplan to be captured, so really, whether she knows it or not, Severine is part of Silva's plan to bring in Bond. Perhpas Severine saying 'sorry' to Bond as she is dragged off on the island means that she did know what she was doing all along. Perhaps she was just bait and now that he no longer needs her, Silva kills her. I think that's actually what's going on, but as with a lot of SF, you have to think long and hard to rationalise a lot of the plot.
It's all a bit fuzzy and confusing.
4. Silva's escape plot I think we all can agree was implausible. Now you be the writer. What would you have done?
First of all, I would never, ever have put him in that damn Silence of the Lambs glass box. Mainly because it just takes you right out of the movie and makes you think about Hannibal Lecter, but also because (for me at least) it is not something that Bond's MI6 would do. I've banged on about this before, but MI6 in this and other recent films has the air of a police state operation. Shady underground chambers, jump suits and glass boxes. It all feels way too oppressive and makes me frankly just sympathise with Silva. The reason M gives for sacrificing Silva is not very convincing and the lack of remorse and sympathy she shows makes me dislike her even more. I know she's supposed to be some cold, heartless professional in this film, but is that really the kind of M we want? She used and discarded this loyal agent. It's more what you'd expect from a Bourne movie. I expect M and the MI6 of the Bond movies to take a little more pastoral interest in their agents. I suspect Mendes is trying to make some political statement, but please, leave that for your next art house movie, and give us a more appealing and human MI6 next time - even if that doesn't reflect the reality. I think the return of M's padded door points in the right direction.
Any way, in terms of the escape, it would have had to make more narrative sense. Why does Silva want to escape from MI6 (where M works) to escape into London where she could be anywhere. Did his planning envisage that she'd be before a committee at precisely that time on that day. It's all so lazy. I guess it might have been possible to have his goons break him out as he's being transported to Bellmarsh. It just seems ridiculous that his whole ploy is to be captured and taken to MI6 and then once he's there, he just escapes out into the street... couldn't he have just caught a plane to Heathrow and taken the tube? It's overly convoluted without any convincing narrative drive. In other words, what I'm saying is that much of plot would need to be rewritten in order for this part of the film to make sense.
5. A two part question. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate Newman's score? Please feel free to detail as to what you liked and if you didn't like it, what was missing for you? Second, do you want Newman back or would you prefer a return to David Arnold or another composer entirely?
Score - 3
The first time I saw the film, I was utterly underwhelmed. This time round, while I don't love it, I felt Newman's score was 'okay'. I thought Arnold's most recent efforts were actually quite good, but they do smack of Barry pastiche and he has never really come up with any very original themes. So on balance, I'd like to see someone else given the job. Some hungry young composer who has respect for the history, but the drive and talent to give us something fresh and exciting.
6. Much has been made about Mendes' acknowledgement that the film reflects his admiration for the recent "Batman" films. And yet Bond films have always survived just fine on their own special formula. So with Skyfall appearing to have brought Bond full circle from CR/QOS and with that in mind, name any three "formula elements" lacking in the current films you would like to see return. For example, they brought back Moneypenny and Q, so what else should return and how would the next adventure look to you?
I disagree with the question. Bond has always lifted heavily from contemporary movies. FRWL 'borrows' heavily from North By North West. There are countless other examples, already mentioned by other posters, where the Bond movies mimic other films or genres. Blackspoitation, kung-fu, sci-fi, Bourne etc. have all had their nods and winks. SF for me has several moments that make me think of Bourne. The shot of Bond sinking through water at the start (and also in the loch underwater fight at the end) echoes the recurring motif that tops and tails the first and third Bourne films. The way Bond 'escapes' to some Asian hideaway with his dark haired beauty after his supposed death also seems a rip off from the start of the Bourne Supremacy, where we find Bourne has escaped to Goa with his dark haired beauty but is still haunted by unfinished business. Although Mendes is probably banned from saying it, I dont' think he's only borrowing from the Batman movies with this one.
Any way, these would be my three 'formula' elements that I'd like to see return. Having the old M office with the padded door used to be top of my list, but Mendes has made that one come true already!
1. A brilliant score with the title song worked beautifully into the movie and some wonderful new themes to match those of the bygone era. Plus some unashamed use of the JB theme.
2. Some beautiful and outlandish set designs. Since Ken Adam stopped working on the films we have not seen production design of that standard. I thought SF looked okay, but there was nothing I hadn't seen previously. I actually think Nolan's films have put Bond to shame on this front, so may be more borrowing from the Batman films is required - not less. For me, amazing production design is a hallmark of most of the classic Bond movies, and this is something that just seems to have been lost/forgotten.
3. More quirky and memorable smaller characters and scenes. I think everyone enjoyed Mathis in CR and QoS. For me, these have always been the opportunities to show Bond's 'human' and relaxed/more complex side. And they also provide good opportunities for some lighter moments and high quality humour. More like this please.
3) I thought Bereniece did a truly excellent job, and Severine was wonderfully played. I understood for the purposes of the story killing her, but I would have been happier if it were later in the film and we had more of her. She was really good and it felt too short. And, as an alternative to killing her, I would have like for Bond to rescue her (after twists, perils, etc.) and end up with her at the end of the film. So my answer is a qualified NO. Although I would have been okay with killing her later, I would still have preferred to have her live (poor Craig just has not had that and we are way overdue for a main Bond girl to be alive at the end of the film). I would not have her try to help Silva, though. However, the way it was done does not bother me much, except for it happening too quickly. It would have been an even better film with more of Severine in it (even if she was killed towards the end). (As for how Bond and Severine interacted, I did not feel anything sleezy or bad about it. I thought Bond was not cruelly taking advantage of her; I did not get that. No bad feelings about them at all.)
4) I am okay with Silva's massive escape plot, because although wild and involving tons of help, this is a Bond film - and I do not expect always to have tight, plausible storylines involving the villains. It did not bother me. I could change some things, but really don't feel like doing that now.
5) Music: 3 or 3.5 Parts were so very, very fine (jellyfish, komodo dragon) but it needed more - especially more of the theme song woven it. And that particular song was haunting, lilting, lovely and had nuances ... oh, this soundtrack could have been great! That does irk me. I am happy if Arnold comes back, and I am fine with Newman returning if he does more this time (apparently, he is talented - get his ego out of the way and work like he relishes this being a Bond film!)
6) I did not see the Batman influence; if it was there (production design, whatever), it was subtle. Really, others have made this point - Bond has influenced films for years, and taken influence from other films and the current culture, too. Bond has, for 50 years, kept being special among all the spy/espionage/action/fun adventure films that are made every year.
What do I want in the next Bond film? #1 ) The main Bond girl surviving and ending up with Bond at the end of the film! That is definitely what I am yearning for. It is years overdue, and it fits Craig's tenure now that it should happen next. 2) An outstanding soundtrack that incorporates the theme song woven in a few times (not overdone, though) and includes the JB theme at some (again, more than once but not overdone) appropriate times. 3) Another tremendous villain - and this could be Quantum (and a truly memorable villain heading it); Craig's tenure has given us the lure of Quantum, I'd like for it to be fully explored - again, it would have to be really well written and cast. 4) Felix (Wright) to return as Bond's ally. I like him. :) 5) Moneypenny to have a slightly meatier role, just not overdone as a field agent; I want more of her and Bond together, I think they have great chemistry. 5) Q being actually brilliant and clever this time around, and 6) snow! I want some lengthy scenes in snow country somewhere; anywhere beautiful, skiing, etc. (And with Deakins on board, the scenes would glow), and that brings me to, 7) Deakins confirmed. Oh, that would make me happy indeed. Bond films have never looked better.
I do not need Blofeld to return; let the head of Quantum be the next big baddest baddie on the block. It is nice for our James to have a nemesis, one that returns. Again, the writing is so crucial to all of the film. So finishing with #8) a GREAT script! :-bd (goes without saying, but still...!)
1) Monneypenny now choses not to do fieldwork again, as it is 'not for' her. So, please no fieldwork. We know she isn't that good at it, that's why she was helping Mallory and that's how she got the secretary job.
2) Q is a-sexual as his orientation has no place in Bondfilms. I couldn't give a rat's a*** what his orientation actually is. If it ever served a purpose.
3) Well, it felt her role was too short indeed, but her death served a purpose: it showed Silva's evilness. So I'm fine with it, allthough it would be nice to have a Bondgirl survive for once in DC's era.
4) I'm afraid I can't really answer this question now as I have too little time, but I'd have preferred a plot less reliant on software or a more-explained back story.
5) 3. A not very memorable soundtrack. Arnold's work in DC's era has been fine, I didn't like it in Brosnans tenure. so give Newman another chance or find someone new entirely.
6) I'm not so formuleactic minded, but a gunbarrel in the right place is nice, and a girl surviving too.
We are writing our thoughts and remembrances on other threads, but I wanted to say something on this thread - this thread was SirHenry's baby, his original thread that has gone on to be a masterpiece, one of the best threads ever. I do want this thread to continue; I think SirHenry truly would want that.
He made it through all the films, and then a revisit with thoughtful commentary. The man gave us so much info and insight - this thread is golden, because of him ... his hard work, passion, and generosity.
Over the next week or so, maybe we can discuss how to continue this thread.
I simply wanted to post on here today - another way to honor the fine man, and great Bond fan, who was @SirHenryLeeChaChing (aka as my friend, Greg).
Very good idea @4EverBonded. One of the best threads this. Has anyone spoken to or heard from @BeatlesSansEarmuffs? I don't know if he's been told the tragic news yet. Perhaps he can give his suggestions on how to proceed with this.
But we don't need to rush to restart this thread, just to know it will continue somehow, pretty soon. I'll help ... but step by step for now. I'll PM Beatles.
I also think it would be good to rename it a bit, something like, "SirHenryLeeChaChing's For Original Fans thread - ..." to keep his name on there as its originator for everybody to see.
Yes, that was another interest close to Greg's heart. It too can be maintained, I trust.